1912 MHS

[Linda Pall <lpall@moscow.com>]

Dear Walter and confidents,

First, thanks for your missive which I just received at 3:30 PM Tuesday,
September 7. This is not a great deal of time in which to reply but here
goes anyway.

First, this information was available to council members prior to the
meeting AND at any time during the prior month ANY of the council members
could have contacted the designers or the project coordinator for building
renovation costs and work in progress. They could also have picked up the
phone and called our own Randy Rice or Gary Riedner to see what progress on
maintenance and operations cost estimation had been made.

As far as the author  of the report, please be advised that the design team
headed by Design West, including the Seattle firm Boyle Waggoner, the
landscape architecture and engineering firm of Hodge and Associates and
others detailed in the report I received are the authors of this information.

Contingency: While 7% is perhaps on the skinny side, the architects involved
in this building have the benefit of a number of detailed studies of this
building which leads to this judgment. I also have reviewed the experience
of these firms during the selection process and was particularly impressed
with both Design West and B-W's ability to manage projects. Indeed, that
figured in the selection of this team by the committee.

Walter, it is not blind faith that has led us to this point in the fund
raising.  Tom Hudson's solid track record with other communities and
projects, plus a strong, persuasive project give me the confidence that
suggests we will be successful. If we are ultimately NOT, we will do as you
and we have done on other projects in which we have not brought in as much
money as we b udgeted: we will regroup. Before we have even put our sound,
doable plan in motion IS NOT the time to regroup.

Annual operations. We make decisions often with far less information than we
have on this project concerning projected maintenance and operations revenue
for the project once rehabbed. I believe that it is reasonable to estimate
that about $50,000 can be realized from a variety of sources of outside
revenue: rental income, project oriented grants for parts of the space, etc.
The city itself is going to finally have a much better, more visible and
productive space for parks and recreation offices as well as our activities
in the arts. 

It is important to note that the City COuncil has listed the 1912 project as
among the top priorities for three years running. (THIS is a juggernaut???)
It is also important to note that this space which will come to the city
without city expense is a unique opportunity for the COuncil and community
to move on with other high priorities we have discussed for many years:
development of the arts as a focus of economic and cultural development,
improvement of facilities for senior citizens and beginning some real
programming for this neglected sector of our population, and providing
additional community facilities for worthy projects like the science center.

Just last Wednesday at a legislative committee meeting in Boise for the
Association of Idaho Cities, increased revenues from road tax resources were
announced and a restructuring of state revenue sharing that could benefit
Moscow while not hurting other cities was discussed. Our revenue picture for
our general fund is not going to staym flat and the increased growth in
property tax revenues permitted under the state limitations is only part of
the answer for this project. Those funds would be spread around to other
programs as well, as council priorities change and develop.

There are thousands of people in Moscow over the years who have supported
expansion of city services to include a community center. More than a
thousand people over the past three years have specifically supported the
renovation of the 1912 building with their money, their voices, their
attendance at many public meetings and their signatures on petitions. 

Where have you been, Walter?

We use the public hearing format for specific state-mandated meeting
requirements. The MANY highly publicized meetings about this project have
drawn hundreds of people over the years... and yes, about a hundred people
last MOnday who were in support of the project and wanted to let the COuncil
know. 

Your proposal for another 'public hearing' has already been answered on
August 30 and again tonight on September 7. And what exactly do you propose
that we vote on? Shall we go forward? Shall we deep six the project? Shall
we do something else???

Walter, you and other citizens who may not be crazy about this project have
had many opportunities to propose other sites, to demonstrate that the
project is not needed or wanted and to offer constructive alternatives. I
have heard nothing over the years. Meanwhile, the rest of us have been
working hard on a valuable project, developing community consensus and
marshalling the resources to make this rehabilitated community center in a
distinctive Moscow landmark a reality.

Won't you join us in support?

All the best,
Linda Pall


PS: RCP talked about going back to a shell. That is incorrect as Walter
noted later. The project uses basic interior materials and existing bearing
walls, hallways and staircases very effectively to keep some of the positive
interior character and reduce costs.

LP